USF vs. BC for NC FTW

[LS20]

Originally posted by: mpitts
In a playoff system, the teams involved in the playoff all have the same opportunity to win it. How is that losing out?

Playoff: 4 teams left, 2 teams win and go to championship game. the 2 losers have no "right" to complain , and enjoy vacation.

BCS: 4 top left, #1 & #2 matched in NC. however, #3 and #4 also get a bowl game to play... and an opportunity to make a statement... so far theyre not very convincing

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: mpitts
I'll respond to the rest of your post later but I couldn't ignore this.

Why do you have to do this in Division 1-A college football and not in any other major sport in the US?

Florida didn't play like a #1 team for half the season last year and they still wound up #1 in both the USA Today and AP polls at the end of the year.

why does baseball have 1-team wildcards and hockey does not? why does D1 baseball have 64 team tournament and hockey 16?

who cares? why are people compelled to require uniformity? football has its own ways, and thats fine. florida was #1 after the the final football game, and who would contest that? apparently worked out alright for the nation.

What about all of the years where it didn't work out? Three out of the last six years it hasn't "worked".

Actually, it has been four out of the last seven years that the system has failed.

What years specifically did it not work out?

Auburn is the only one that really comes to mind.

And if it ever comes down to two one loss teams, I don't care. They shouldn't have lost a game, once you do that you have no right to complain.

 

[slugg]

<--- goes to USF


WOOHOOO GO BULLS!

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: mpitts

The goal of the BCS is choosing the best two teams to play each other at the end of year. That hasn't happened more than half the time.

You can try to justify the end result to yourself as much as you'd like but the facts are the facts.

It's no consolation to finish #2, or #3, or #4. Teams compete to be #1, and the fact is, the BCS has crowned the correct #1 team every year.

(Auburn USC being an exception because USC was a superior team, but with illegal circumstances discovered after-the-fact)

The "correct #1 team"? Seems like you've decided on who should be the champ before the national championship game was played.

And here we have the main problem with the BCS. Pollsters decide who should be no. 1 and no. 2 instead of deciding it on the field.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Oiprocs
The problem with the playoff is that too many universities do not want to see it happen. You get money for winning a bowl game (not sure where it comes from, sponsors, tickets sales, etc.); if you introduce a playoff, those bowl games disappear, and thus the money that went to those winning teams disappear.

There are currently 33 bowl games. The least rewarded bowl is $325,000. Again, I'm not sure how that is split between the loser and the winner, but that means 66 universities will receive monetary compensation for their hard work of earning a spot in one of those bowl games.

Installing a playoff system would effectively remove that reward of money, prestige, pride, etc. Yes, you could have a bracket system where the longer you last in the playoffs, the more money you get, with the National Champion receiving the most money, but how would you structure that? A 66 team playoff bracket? Assuming you did a 64 team playoff, that would require 5 weeks of games (64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2). How tired would teams be? On top of their 12-13 game schedule, the national champion has to play an additional 5 games? What about school? These aren't the pros, these are college athletes that are (or should) be caring about their academics.

Money is really the bottom line. Those sponsors keep lining up to have their name on a bowl game, and they will keep pumping money into the system. Universities like that even though they may not be national champions, they can still savor a 7-5 season with a bowl win. I would LOVE to see a playoff system installed; as a fan, it really is the only way to see who the best is. But our (the fan) perspective is not the one that matters most in this case.

I dont see how making a playoff system for the top 4-8 teams would affect any of the other 29 bowls, and it might just create an additional one.



The problem is the following, and there is no easy solution.
There are just too many teams, and every conference wants to guarantee that some of its teams will play in bowl games at the EOY...

Whether the system stays as-is, or a playoff system is introduced...

The problem is this notion that a 1 loss larger school should have some type of favoritism over a 0 loss smaller school. there are valid opinions on both sides.
Barring a complete reorganization of D1-A schools... nothing is going to ever "fix" college football. The only way to "fix" college football is to reorg so that strength of schedule is no longer a factor in determining rankings.

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: touchmyichi
Angry that your LSU/Cal/USC/Oklahoma/Oregon/WVU/South Carolina/Kentucky is out of the NC race? Well here's the second best option:

Boston College Vs. South Florida

If this were to occur the glaring fallibility of the BCS system will be exposed. Until this point, we've always had pretty respected big name programs make it to the BCS by quite a bit of luck (note: I'm not saying that these programs are necessarily more deserving, but because they end up there people don't complain as much). However, these two teams could really convince people why it is so urgent to introduce a playoff system.

No offense to any USF or BC fans, in fact, I think your teams are both terrific. But, I don't think you can honestly say that either of your teams have gone through a schedule like LSU or is as good of a team. Yet, this is the entire point of a playoff. There would be no need to bicker about or argue if a 1 loss LSU team is more/less deserving, they would have the chance to prove it.

2 Things need to happen for this to occur:
1. Ohio State needs to lose
2. BC and South Florida win out

Go Bulls/Eagles!!!

Just throwing this out there, you had mentioend LSU has a tougher schedule than USF? I don't know but having to play against West Virginia, @ Rutgers, vs. Cincy and vs. Louisville isn't exactly a cake walk. Playoffs ftw.

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
The "correct #1 team"? Seems like you've decided on who should be the champ before the national championship game was played.

And here we have the main problem with the BCS. Pollsters decide who should be no. 1 and no. 2 instead of deciding it on the field.

the pollsters decided who the most qualified teams are
they played and decided #1 on the field

again, what year did you disagree with the bcs results?

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: MrLee
Just throwing this out there, you had mentioend LSU has a tougher schedule than USF? I don't know but having to play against West Virginia, @ Rutgers, vs. Cincy and vs. Louisville isn't exactly a cake walk. Playoffs ftw.

The typical dumb fan is just barely beginning to realize that West Virginia is good, and has never heard of Rutgers or Cincinnati (and Louisville isn't that good this year).

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: chuckywang
The "correct #1 team"? Seems like you've decided on who should be the champ before the national championship game was played.

And here we have the main problem with the BCS. Pollsters decide who should be no. 1 and no. 2 instead of deciding it on the field.

the pollsters decided who the most qualified teams are
they played and decided #1 on the field

again, what year did you disagree with the bcs results?

2004: USC should have been given the chance to play for the NC.
2005: Auburn, Utah should have been given the chance to play for the NC.
2007: Boise State should have been given a chance to play for the NC.


Fact of the matter is, a lot of times more than 2 teams per year deserve to be given the chance to play for the NC due to the compression of teams in the college football landscape. It's getting harder and harder to definitively say "Oh, team A is more deserving than team B", this year especially. USC could have beaten LSU in 2004, Auburn or Utah could have beaten USC in 2005, Boise State could have beaten Florida in 2007. You don't know unless you play. It makes absolutely no sense that some team could have beaten every single team on their schedule and still not be able to compete for the ultimate prize. Why? Oh, because some pollsters don't think they were that good at the beginning of the season before a single snap is taken. College football is the only sport in the world where going undefeated might not win you a championship. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I'm all for a playoff because of teams like USF and schedule parity. Ask yourself this question: If you played for LSU would you rather have your schedule or USFs? If you played for USF which schedule would you choose?

I think USF is a good team but to be honest they just don't have to play the same caliber teams week in and week out as someone in the SEC. However, this is not USF's fault which is why if we had a playoff there would be no reason to whine about it.

Oh well, I'll keep dreaming but have a feeling we will never see a playoff.

 

[kalster]

ok usf is gone, next week va tech takes down BC too

 

[isekii]

Originally posted by: kalster
ok usf is gone, next week va tech takes down BC too

Then michigan takes down osu.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: chuckywang
The "correct #1 team"? Seems like you've decided on who should be the champ before the national championship game was played.

And here we have the main problem with the BCS. Pollsters decide who should be no. 1 and no. 2 instead of deciding it on the field.

the pollsters decided who the most qualified teams are
they played and decided #1 on the field

again, what year did you disagree with the bcs results?

2004: USC should have been given the chance to play for the NC.
2005: Auburn, Utah should have been given the chance to play for the NC.
2007: Boise State should have been given a chance to play for the NC.


Fact of the matter is, a lot of times more than 2 teams per year deserve to be given the chance to play for the NC due to the compression of teams in the college football landscape. It's getting harder and harder to definitively say "Oh, team A is more deserving than team B", this year especially. USC could have beaten LSU in 2004, Auburn or Utah could have beaten USC in 2005, Boise State could have beaten Florida in 2007. You don't know unless you play. It makes absolutely no sense that some team could have beaten every single team on their schedule and still not be able to compete for the ultimate prize. Why? Oh, because some pollsters don't think they were that good at the beginning of the season before a single snap is taken. College football is the only sport in the world where going undefeated might not win you a championship. It makes absolutely no sense.

One sure way to play for a chance to play for the national championship every, schedule tough opponents.

 

[JasonCoder]

Originally posted by: isekii

Originally posted by: kalster
ok usf is gone, next week va tech takes down BC too

Then michigan takes down osu.

giggle...

snicker...

hehehehe... hahahHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHOHOHO

That was good, I needed a good laugh.

That team up north will be fortunate to come out of this weekend with a healthy backfield. Illinois D puts the pain in Champaign. Pay no attention to the Iowa game :roll:

 

[JasonCoder]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: chuckywang
The "correct #1 team"? Seems like you've decided on who should be the champ before the national championship game was played.

And here we have the main problem with the BCS. Pollsters decide who should be no. 1 and no. 2 instead of deciding it on the field.

the pollsters decided who the most qualified teams are
they played and decided #1 on the field

again, what year did you disagree with the bcs results?

2004: USC should have been given the chance to play for the NC.
2005: Auburn, Utah should have been given the chance to play for the NC.
2007: Boise State should have been given a chance to play for the NC.


Fact of the matter is, a lot of times more than 2 teams per year deserve to be given the chance to play for the NC due to the compression of teams in the college football landscape. It's getting harder and harder to definitively say "Oh, team A is more deserving than team B", this year especially. USC could have beaten LSU in 2004, Auburn or Utah could have beaten USC in 2005, Boise State could have beaten Florida in 2007. You don't know unless you play. It makes absolutely no sense that some team could have beaten every single team on their schedule and still not be able to compete for the ultimate prize. Why? Oh, because some pollsters don't think they were that good at the beginning of the season before a single snap is taken. College football is the only sport in the world where going undefeated might not win you a championship. It makes absolutely no sense.

In 2004 USC won the AP NC. Small consolation IMO but some say that counts.

In 2005 I don't know that Utah beats anyone but Pitt. Pitt had a god awful BCS team... kinda like Notre Dame or Wake (no, check that, Wake was better).

In 2007 Boise State should have indeed been given a chance to compete. They probably would have done a better job than my Buckeyes.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: chuckywang
The "correct #1 team"? Seems like you've decided on who should be the champ before the national championship game was played.

And here we have the main problem with the BCS. Pollsters decide who should be no. 1 and no. 2 instead of deciding it on the field.

the pollsters decided who the most qualified teams are
they played and decided #1 on the field

again, what year did you disagree with the bcs results?

2004: USC should have been given the chance to play for the NC.
2005: Auburn, Utah should have been given the chance to play for the NC.
2007: Boise State should have been given a chance to play for the NC.


Fact of the matter is, a lot of times more than 2 teams per year deserve to be given the chance to play for the NC due to the compression of teams in the college football landscape. It's getting harder and harder to definitively say "Oh, team A is more deserving than team B", this year especially. USC could have beaten LSU in 2004, Auburn or Utah could have beaten USC in 2005, Boise State could have beaten Florida in 2007. You don't know unless you play. It makes absolutely no sense that some team could have beaten every single team on their schedule and still not be able to compete for the ultimate prize. Why? Oh, because some pollsters don't think they were that good at the beginning of the season before a single snap is taken. College football is the only sport in the world where going undefeated might not win you a championship. It makes absolutely no sense.

One sure way to play for a chance to play for the national championship every, schedule tough opponents.

Auburn played an SEC schedule and was left out mainly because they started the season unranked. When there are three undefeateds your logic is flawed.

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: chuckywang
The "correct #1 team"? Seems like you've decided on who should be the champ before the national championship game was played.

And here we have the main problem with the BCS. Pollsters decide who should be no. 1 and no. 2 instead of deciding it on the field.

the pollsters decided who the most qualified teams are
they played and decided #1 on the field

again, what year did you disagree with the bcs results?

2004: USC should have been given the chance to play for the NC.
2005: Auburn, Utah should have been given the chance to play for the NC.
2007: Boise State should have been given a chance to play for the NC.


Fact of the matter is, a lot of times more than 2 teams per year deserve to be given the chance to play for the NC due to the compression of teams in the college football landscape. It's getting harder and harder to definitively say "Oh, team A is more deserving than team B", this year especially. USC could have beaten LSU in 2004, Auburn or Utah could have beaten USC in 2005, Boise State could have beaten Florida in 2007. You don't know unless you play. It makes absolutely no sense that some team could have beaten every single team on their schedule and still not be able to compete for the ultimate prize. Why? Oh, because some pollsters don't think they were that good at the beginning of the season before a single snap is taken. College football is the only sport in the world where going undefeated might not win you a championship. It makes absolutely no sense.

One sure way to play for a chance to play for the national championship every, schedule tough opponents.

Auburn played an SEC schedule and was left out mainly because they started the season unranked. When there are three undefeateds your logic is flawed.

true
although it didn't help their cause that their OOC was
la-tech, la-monroe, the citadel

 

[heyheybooboo]

Any system without a playoff crowns a mythical champion.

(and I admit bias as a graduate, local resident and supporter of Appalachian - the 2-time defending I-AA champs)

and btw, Michigan, it's App-uh-latch-in

:laugh:

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Auburn played an SEC schedule and was left out mainly because they started the season unranked. When there are three undefeateds your logic is flawed.

true
although it didn't help their cause that their OOC was
la-tech, la-monroe, the citadel

The Citadel was only scheduled because Bowling Green--in one of those amazing moments of unwitting serendipity--backed out of their game with Auburn when they were offered more money by ... guess who ... Oklahoma.

Bowling Green (which still had a lot of Urban Meyer's recruits at the time) was actually pretty decent that year, going 9-3, and I remember reading an ESPN article that mused that Auburn would have had one of the most difficult schedules in history (based on opponent winning %) if not for losing Bowling Green to the team that ended up taking their spot in the NC-game.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Auburn played an SEC schedule and was left out mainly because they started the season unranked. When there are three undefeateds your logic is flawed.

true
although it didn't help their cause that their OOC was
la-tech, la-monroe, the citadel

The Citadel was only scheduled because Bowling Green--in one of those amazing moments of unwitting serendipity--backed out of their game with Auburn when they were offered more money by ... guess who ... Oklahoma.

Bowling Green (which still had a lot of Urban Meyer's recruits at the time) was actually pretty decent that year, going 9-3, and I remember reading an ESPN article that mused that Auburn would have had one of the most difficult schedules in history (based on opponent winning %) if not for losing Bowling Green to the team that ended up taking their spot in the NC-game.

*edit* Oops, I just repeated myself!